Friday, February 20, 2015

The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all. A major nuclear war would be the end of civilisation, and maybe the end of the human race.

This is idiotic. It isn't human aggression that threatens to destroy us all, it is science and scientists. Hawking demonstrates a complete inability to correctly utilize basic logic.

Scientists created the threat. Rather than work to remove the threat, some of the very people who created it now want to EXPERIMENT WITH THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE in order to do something that won't remove the current threat and might well create some that are even worse.

Scientists love to posture as if they are the good guys responsible for saving the human race, but they are the party primarily responsible for endangering it in a variety of ways.

101 Comments:

VD, you're so far behind the curve w/ your petty, miniscule IQ. Only now do you discover the immense power we scientists hold over the world, and you cower in fear. You posit that we are a danger, and you try to rally your weak brethren to oppose us, but to no avail.

Did you really not expect that we anticipated these threats many, many decades ago? That is why each newly minted scientist is presented with an array of advanced weapons to deal with your puny attacks, should you ever muster enough courage to come out from behind your FPS games.

These range from simple neuralyzers to proton packs to bona fide sharks with lasers on their heads! (Mostly for scientists in Key West). And if you really push it, we'll unleash the Genesis device while we hide out in deep underground bunkers with nuclear reactors, greenhouses and ten females for each male.

To be fair, any aggression sent his way including sneezes, eye roll wind disturbances, or even harmful thoughts could in fact destroy him...... asThe older I get the more I see most of science as simply philosophy performed by an Asperger.

It amazes me the trust associated with GMO on the right, and the level of vitriol I receive when I am not all that convinced of their safety and think that such products should be labeled. There is no evidence to suggest that the alterations being made are limited to the intended consequence. And then some of them seem completely unnecessary changes. Like the new GMO apple that supposedly resists browning when exposed to oxygen. It doesn't prevent spoiling, just browning.

Hey, I know, let's extend EVERYBODY'S lifespan to ...say 150, because ...um...science. THAT ought to bring in the extra income from "social health", especially assisted suicide, and "women's" elder health issues.

"VD, you're so far behind the curve w/ your petty, miniscule IQ."Hey, didn't you steal that from a certain "White House Spokeswoman" Voxsplaining (don't be confused) what she "theorized" the day before?

Also, didn't he read Starship Troopers? Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

Look guys, I think it's a mistake to assume all/most Aspies as the equivalent of moronic idiots who can't be K selected. I assure you that at least towards the shallow end of the curve (i.e. not full blown aspie/autistic) we're pretty much hardwired to be K selected to the nth power. And even some pretty full blown Aspies who are not even particularly high IQ tend to be rather successful in their narrow field of interest. If we use the analogy of character points Aspies are more like people who put 80 points into one thing. They can be a little one-dimensional, but they are not all dimwitted atheist scientists. Not by a long shot.

Argh. I really wish Hawking would shut up about anything other than physics.Well... the guy is obviously good at that, but I do not buy his ultimate premises in some of his let's say "final" theorises. He's like the kid who gets all the maths right and still misunderstands the overall point of the problem. But... he is in a shitty body and pretty crappy life, so... I find it hard to put him down on the one thing he is most famous for being good at.

Not sure if Hawking has seen Firefly. He was a big ST:TNG fan, and of course that show had an almost moronically idealistic approach to violence.

"Hey! Let's put helpless little children on the flagship of our space fleet! You know... the one that gets attacked by aliens / sent back in time / sucked into spacial anomalies every week!"

"Nah... of course Starfleet isn't a military outfit. Why would you think that about our heavily armed warships crewed by people bearing navy ranks?"

"I don't care how many trillions of sentient lifeforms the Borg have murdered or enslaved. Wiping them out would be totes wrong, you guys! Besides, we gave this one a name."

They didn't even court martial Picard over that last one. They should've beaten him and tossed his baldy head out of the nearest airlock, along with his stupid fish, but the worst censure he faced was mild disapproval from a lady Admiral.

Stephen Hawking is the same guy that said we shouldn't try to contact extraterrestrial forces because they might attack us. Why would you want to lose aggressiveness when you may have to defend yourself from ET someday? He's being very incoherent.

He is a rabbit waiting for his rabbit treat. Plenty of violence on the Left, its actually predicated on violence, ask them what the limits to dissent are. Hawking if he could speak would never denigrate any of the lefty heroes of violence, he is a rabbit after all.

It's incredible to think that decades from now, when my grandchildren are learning Stephen Hawking's theories in science class, I'll be able to tell them I had a personal meeting with him and heard his views first hand. It's something I'll never forget.

"He was a big ST:TNG fan, and of course that show had an almost moronically idealistic approach to violence."

Imagine Q as a SWJ he might put humanity on trial for its crimes against humanity.

"Hey, I know, let's extend EVERYBODY'S lifespan to ...say 150" - bc46a "Women would live to 150, men would be thrill seekers around 70 to avoid being around women that much longer. Forget cat stuff vibrators with planned obsolescence will be where its at. The difference in population will make wealth redistribution mandatory.

"Scientists love to posture as if they are the good guys responsible for saving the human race, but they are the party primarily responsible for endangering it in a variety of ways." - Vox

If I may quote something rycamor said on this very site a year ago that has stuck with me:

"Up until the first atomic bomb was tested, even the scientists involved thought there was a chance that a single nuclear explosion could trigger a chain reaction that would destroy the whole planet. They went ahead and did it anyway. Think about that, anyone who wants to pontificate about the moral superiority of science. If you take a glance through the history of science, you will find repeated evidence of men willing to endanger you, your family, or even all of society simply to prove their theories. "

Hawking has always been a mediocre-talent hack, who is only semi-good in his field because he got that cripple-disease. Had he not, he never would have amounted to anything, and would just be yet another nameless "Global warming" hack.

As it is, his illness gave him the luxury of being able to focus on one thing alone, without distractions that normal people suffer through. It is ONLY because of that opportunity to focus, and the pity he gets from being a cripple, that he's known at all. He's a nobody.

Trek was created by a utopianist with no understanding of life. I grew up watching it mostly because i watched TNG with my father, but the claims about humanity changijg after WWIII etc. are ridiculous especially when you think about the crap that happens every episode. And the heads of StarFleet are always portrayed as scumbags with their own agendas so how much did they change?

Hawking has made substantial contributions to the field of physics, both in terms of theory and popularizing the field. That he's apparently intent on destroying his reputation with this armchair philosophizing shouldn't diminish his genuine contributions to science.

Although, I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that Hawking is losing his mental faculties. Or the disturbing possibility that someone else is speaking "through" him. Then again, this wouldn't be the first time a brilliant person has spouted off nonsense. After all, as Carter and Clinton showed us, IQ doesn't necessarily correlate with wisdom.

> That he's apparently intent on destroying his reputation with this armchair philosophizing shouldn't diminish his genuine contributions to science.

Indubitably. Be that as it may, however, he seems to be overly invested in Space as a saviour of sorts, or a survivalist ideal. He even thinks nuclear annihilation is a possibility. My own survey of the world situation since the development of the bomb, is that there have been many times where a conflagration could have broken out but was thwarted.

Aggression is a required trait for survival in hostile environments, the most successful species form in such environments, compete with each other and when expansion becomes a possibility, the invasion of less militarized colonies results in their destruction or enslavement. For all intent and purposes humans are predatory apes that have wiped out their less-aggressive members or subspecies.

If you were to breed out aggression, you will create a dead-end genome that will be eventually be dominated, exploited and extinguished.

We have the illusion of having transcended this in the modern world, just like a herd of sheep that have never faced predators head on might think of the sheep dogs as unnecessary.

I find this blog fascinating, too many smart people in one place, been reading for months but had nothing to contribute until today. English is not my native language and I welcome any criticism that will help me close the gap.

> English is not my native language and I welcome any criticism that will help me close the gap.

I don't see any problem, but the guy you have to check with is Markku. He has English as a 2nd or 3rd language, and he is a bitch about the rules. He is the Walter Sobchak of International Communication.

I did not notice any problem with it. The guy you gotta look out for is Markku. He has English as a second or third language, but he is a real bitch about the rules.

I know a great many scientists, including the one I sleep with. They can be extremely brilliant in their chosen area of study, but about anything outside that area, they're no brighter than anyone else and can sometimes be startlingly stupid.

It's no different from mastery of any other subject or craft, really. A guy who spends 50 hours a week playing World of Warcraft is likely to be a damned good WoW player but I wouldn't ask him for advice about where to invest my money.

However, science inherited some of the mojo of priests and wizards, and we all want to believe there are people who have all the answers and can read the entrails. So we ask physicists about the weather and doctors about foreign policy and hope they'll give us some sciencey wisdom.

I know a great many scientists, including the one I sleep with. They can be extremely brilliant in their chosen area of study, but about anything outside that area, they're no brighter than anyone else and can sometimes be startlingly stupid.

Richard Feynman has a quote about that............damned if I can find it now. Maybe it got an internet scrubbing because it was too relevant.

My cousin had some weird disease like Hawking but it may have been more debilitating. You had to interpret was he was trying to say, and it usually ended in a coughing and spitting up episode. He must have been 90 pounds when he got the final pneumonia.

Jeri Ryan made unsubstantiated claims that Jack Ryan was a sexual deviant in her divorce proceedings. Jack Ryan was the popular GOP candidate running against Obama for US Senate in IL. Jack Ryan was the favorite until friends of Obama got his divorce records unsealed and he was forced to drop out. As Obama was allowed to run unopposed he was able to run around the country making a name for himself with the national DNC and was able to get elevated to the Keynote speaker for the DNC 2004 convention despite the fact that he was a lowly IL state senator at the time.

zen0: Be that as it may, however, he seems to be overly invested in Space as a saviour of sorts, or a survivalist ideal.

When you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you look for one elsewhere.

You know, I don't get it. You'd think a man in Hawking's position, with the crummy card he got dealt in life, would embrace the idea of eternal life in a new body. I can't figure out what his beef is with God. He's already "walking" about as narrow a path as he can, so it's unlikely to be the usual trivial stuff, like sexual licentiousness, that's biasing him against God. Maybe it's just pride.

Trimegistus: Oh, and shouldn't that be "wheelchair philosophizing" in Hawking's case?

True that Hawking is out to lunch here (aggression is a byproduct of internal tension). But so is Vox. It's true science has enabled the human condition to reek more havoc, but the problem is still the HUMAN CONDITION.

zen0: At the risk of TMI, from others who I have known about with paralytic diseases, it is not necessarily an impediment to virility.

I had a quadriplegic buddy in college, and he said things to the effect that he was "active" in that regard. So, maybe. But I hope something so trivial isn't what's standing in the way of Hawking accepting God.

Serving the homeless, a requested hot chocolate/coffee mix is known as a Cadillac. Tonight I messed up and mixed hot chocolate and cranberry juice. Fortunately I tossed it before serving, I said, "This isn't a Cadillac, its a Yugo." But I got curious and mixed one on purpose at the end of the route. Oddly enough, it wasn't bad.

Remember it was White House scientists that override BP on how to cap the Gulf spill. They failed time and time again until they finally resorted to the technique BP initially proposed to cap the wellhead.

Cue SJW ("W" for weenie) piping up how science being self correcting is a virtue in 3, 2, 1...

I like the original Trek a lot better than any of the follow-ons. It was made at a time before the pinkification of SciFi had overridden basic understandings of human behavior. Look back at those stories, it's shocking how often "peacemakers" are portrayed as monsters, often causing all the death and misery of war without the chance to actually resolve the dispute and eventually end the killing.

And dovetailing with the topic of the post, there's the episode where Kirk is split into two being, one with all the "bad" emotions and one with all the "good" ones, but the good Kirk is an indecisive wimp without his bad side.

Whatever Roddenberry was, for three years in the late 60's he made a relatvely blue sci-fi show

He's a fool with a degree who did some interesting non testable maths modeling for black holes.Wrong about the universe expanding. Wrong about evolution. Wrong about God. ie. He's got at least three strikes on the real scoreboard, and is still, sort of, alive.

It's true science has enabled the human condition to reek more havoc, but the problem is still the HUMAN CONDITION.

The problem is not the HUMAN CONDITION. The HUMAN CONDITION has never, and cannot, endanger humanity, by definition. Humanity is now in danger thanks to science. And Hawking's proposal is, in itself, a danger to humanity.

I know a great many scientists, including the one I sleep with. They can be extremely brilliant in their chosen area of study, but about anything outside that area, they're no brighter than anyone else and can sometimes be startlingly stupid.

Or Chomsky... but sometimes I begin to wonder how brilliant these folks are in their choosen area of study, especially areas that don't produce tangible, testable items like semiconductors or rocket engines. Are Hawking's theories about black holes and space time etc. really valid? It's a branch of study that's become so specialized, I'm not in any position to accurately judge, but is it the same syndrome as with journalists?

You know, the one where when a journalist reports on a story you know something about and gets it wrong, why should you trust them when they're reporting on a story you don't know anything about?

"Are Hawking's theories about black holes and space time etc. really valid? It's a branch of study that's become so specialized, I'm not in any position to accurately judge, but is it the same syndrome as with journalists?"

The entire physics profession runs on the reputation of the atom bomb. Without it, physics is just natural philosophy.

This is why Vox Day argues that, as a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point where it becomes engineering.

Humanity is now in danger thanks to science. And Hawking's proposal is, in itself, a danger to humanity.

On this point, no doubt Hawking is a philosophical ignoramus. But this just proves the point: humanity is in danger because of dishonest science (what you often refer to as scientism), and scientific ability placed in the hands of ethical infants. And it's in danger because "scientistics" like Hawking have such limited philosophical and macro thinking ability.

Saying human aggression is the problem, is indeed stupid because it's simplistic, and in it's omission of the macro picture, dishonest.

No, "science" is not the problem. Scientism, dishonest science, and autistic/aspie "scientists" who are incapable of grasping the bigger picture of the human condition (which involves grappling with bigger questions of history, theology, physiology, neurology, philosophy, and particularly, how these topics must merge is in fact the problem.

Pure "science" (meaning only literally the "search for knowledge", and "knowledge", meaning "know" the "ledge"), is not the problem. Small scientistic (aspie) minds are the problem (especially when they grasp for the bigger picture).

It was Carl Sagan with his nuclear winter theory that started the trend of scientists, mostly left winger ones, injecting themselves into political discourse. Of course they are full of bull. The funny thing about the nuclear winter theory (which was never peer-reviewed, BTW) was that it was originally a clever construct of disinformation that was created by the KGB in the early 80's. It was intended to create political opposition to Reagan's efforts to put Pershing II IRBM's in West Germany.

"Whatever Roddenberry was, for three years in the late 60's he made a relatvely blue sci-fi show." - Jack Amok

Want to see what Roddenberry was? Just watch Next Generation seasons 1-4ish. That's all before he died. Seasons 4 1/2 -7 were great because the writers were no longer stuck under his stupid hippie dippy bull-twaddle directions.

"The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, released July 9, 1955, called for a conference for scientists to assess the dangers of weapons of mass destruction (then only considered to be nuclear weapons)."

Pugwash was basically a Soviet front organization.

Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists

"The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical online magazine that covers global security and public policy issues related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, climate change, emerging technologies and diseases. It has been published continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. "

And the irony is (I'm a great fan of irony) that the scientists all know that what Vox says is true.

Take Michael Crighton's Jurassic Park, for example. Mr Crighton was a working scientist as well as author. Here's a couple of his characters:

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now[bangs on the table]Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well...John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.